College Cheating Scandal part II

U.S. NEWS College cheating scandal: First lawsuits filed by students at elite schools

Well that didn't take long. Here comes the lawsuits. There is a student that had a 4.2 that wasn't accepted.
There are also students that don't think their degrees are worth as much now due to the scandal. It has devalued the prestigue.
There are many industries that recruit from certain schools. I wonder if this will change how they look at those schools. If so, these
students are right.

This article talks about Stanford, but I wonder how all the other ivy league schools will fare?
How far does this go? Are we talking about all schools or only prestigeous ones.
Will this fizzle out or with this cause sweeping changes?

U.S. NEWS College cheating scandal: First lawsuits filed by students at elite schools

Well that didn't take long. Here comes the lawsuits. There is a student that had a 4.2 that wasn't accepted.
There are also students that don't think their degrees are worth as much now due to the scandal. It has devalued the prestigue.
There are many industries that recruit from certain schools. I wonder if this will change how they look at those schools. If so, these
students are right.

This article talks about Stanford, but I wonder how all the other ivy league schools will fare?
How far does this go? Are we talking about all schools or only prestigeous ones.
Will this fizzle out or with this cause sweeping changes?

These schools reject 4.0 GPAs all the time. In fact, most will openly state a 4.0+ GPA don't mean sh*t. There are students with 4.0 GPAs who need
remedial english and math classes freshman year. I don't see that lawsuit going anywhere.

I can see why some current students might believe the value of their degree being devalued, but you can make that argument about any negative info
tied to a university. I mean if the PC police blocking open debate and freedom of speech isn't devaluing their degrees, why should this scandal?

Yes, people buy their way into college. Yes, that affects some's approval. This doesn't mean every student in the history of that school's rejection
should get a handout. A 4.2 isn't very impressive. Also, GPA is 1 out of 2743059237 things that colleges look at.

Yes, people buy their way into college. Yes, that affects some's approval. This doesn't mean every student in the history of that school's rejection
should get a handout. A 4.2 isn't very impressive. Also, GPA is 1 out of 2743059237 things that colleges look at.

Yeah, people don't get that schools look at more than grades / test scores. The grades / test scores are just an easy measuring stick but not the be
all end all for qualifications. Never have been.

Why, because the cult45 will move the goalposts once one of the horsemen of the great orange one becomes implicated. ..

i.e. this:

onservative political pundit Ann Coulter ripped President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner on Tuesday by
asking whether he will be taken down for his father “buying” his Harvard University admission before getting indicted by special counsel Robert
Mueller.
“BLIND ITEM: Which top presidential advisor could be in hot water over his father buying his Harvard admission SOONER than he'll be indicted by
Mueller?” Coulter tweeted, along with the hashtag #CollegeCheatingScandal.

They do look at more, but at the same time, now these schools will have to prove that kids with better GPAs weren't rejected in favor of kids who
bribed their way in. It's an embarrassing mess.

How can you prove that if other factors determine admission...

Again... almost 40,000 kids applied to Harvard for admission into 2020 class. They only gave offers to 5.9%... so 2,360 kids out of 40,000.

I'd venture at least 10,000 of the applicants are well qualified to attend meaning that vast majority would still get rejected. This is why that suit
won't go anywhere because I am sure these schools can easily show that even if they excluded the students who "weren't as qualified" the plaintiff
still would not have been accepted.

Put another way, let's just assume 25% of the admits don't deserve to be there, so 590 slots that would go to another kid. I don't even have to do
the math, but it should be obvious that your chance of acceptance still barely even moves.

Acceptance is largely a crap shoot after a certain point and GPA / Test Scores are not what determines acceptance.

You'd be asking the college to prove all 2,360 are rankable by GPA and test scores alone. The plaintiffs case falls apart when the school shows they
did not accept students who were even more qualified than the plaintiff...

They do look at more, but at the same time, now these schools will have to prove that kids with better GPAs weren't rejected in favor of kids who
bribed their way in. It's an embarrassing mess.

How can you prove that if other factors determine admission...

Again... almost 40,000 kids applied to Harvard for admission into 2020 class. They only gave offers to 5.9%... so 2,360 kids out of 40,000.

I'd venture at least 10,000 of the applicants are well qualified to attend meaning that vast majority would still get rejected. This is why that suit
won't go anywhere because I am sure these schools can easily show that even if they excluded the students who "weren't as qualified" the plaintiff
still would not have been accepted.

Put another way, let's just assume 25% of the admits don't deserve to be there, so 590 slots that would go to another kid. I don't even have to do
the math, but it should be obvious that your chance of acceptance still barely even moves.

Acceptance is largely a crap shoot after a certain point and GPA / Test Scores are not what determines acceptance.

You'd be asking the college to prove all 2,360 are rankable by GPA and test scores alone. The plaintiffs case falls apart when the school shows they
did not accept students who were even more qualified than the plaintiff...

Doubtful.

The circumstance NOW will dictate otherwise considering all that has been uncovered.

Point is, how do we know the tough admissions was being fare to began with? Now that you have uncovered paid seats, everything prior is thrown into
doubt.

They do look at more, but at the same time, now these schools will have to prove that kids with better GPAs weren't rejected in favor of kids who
bribed their way in. It's an embarrassing mess.

How can you prove that if other factors determine admission...

Again... almost 40,000 kids applied to Harvard for admission into 2020 class. They only gave offers to 5.9%... so 2,360 kids out of 40,000.

I'd venture at least 10,000 of the applicants are well qualified to attend meaning that vast majority would still get rejected. This is why that suit
won't go anywhere because I am sure these schools can easily show that even if they excluded the students who "weren't as qualified" the plaintiff
still would not have been accepted.

Put another way, let's just assume 25% of the admits don't deserve to be there, so 590 slots that would go to another kid. I don't even have to do
the math, but it should be obvious that your chance of acceptance still barely even moves.

Acceptance is largely a crap shoot after a certain point and GPA / Test Scores are not what determines acceptance.

You'd be asking the college to prove all 2,360 are rankable by GPA and test scores alone. The plaintiffs case falls apart when the school shows they
did not accept students who were even more qualified than the plaintiff...

Doubtful.

The circumstance NOW will dictate otherwise considering all that has been uncovered.

Point is, how do we know the tough admissions was being fare to began with? Now that you have uncovered paid seats, everything prior is thrown into
doubt.

Admissions isn't fair... it NEVER has been fair. There is no way to make it "fair" unless you just open admissions to anyone which isn't going to
happen.

Whether we like it or not, these schools are as much social fraternities/sororities just as much as they are academic institutions. Just even think
about it. We have people willing to pay many times more than it cost to attend just to get acceptance. It isn't about the learning, but the social
connections and badges of prestige that certain schools confer.

They do look at more, but at the same time, now these schools will have to prove that kids with better GPAs weren't rejected in favor of kids who
bribed their way in. It's an embarrassing mess.

How can you prove that if other factors determine admission...

Again... almost 40,000 kids applied to Harvard for admission into 2020 class. They only gave offers to 5.9%... so 2,360 kids out of 40,000.

I'd venture at least 10,000 of the applicants are well qualified to attend meaning that vast majority would still get rejected. This is why that suit
won't go anywhere because I am sure these schools can easily show that even if they excluded the students who "weren't as qualified" the plaintiff
still would not have been accepted.

Put another way, let's just assume 25% of the admits don't deserve to be there, so 590 slots that would go to another kid. I don't even have to do
the math, but it should be obvious that your chance of acceptance still barely even moves.

Acceptance is largely a crap shoot after a certain point and GPA / Test Scores are not what determines acceptance.

You'd be asking the college to prove all 2,360 are rankable by GPA and test scores alone. The plaintiffs case falls apart when the school shows they
did not accept students who were even more qualified than the plaintiff...

Doubtful.

The circumstance NOW will dictate otherwise considering all that has been uncovered.

Point is, how do we know the tough admissions was being fare to began with? Now that you have uncovered paid seats, everything prior is thrown into
doubt.

Admissions isn't fair... it NEVER has been fair. There is no way to make it "fair" unless you just open admissions to anyone which isn't going to
happen.

Whether we like it or not, these schools are as much social fraternities/sororities just as much as they are academic institutions. Just even think
about it. We have people willing to pay many times more than it cost to attend just to get acceptance. It isn't about the learning, but the social
connections and badges of prestige that certain schools confer.

That's fine and all, but if they get government funding there are rules to be played by, like discrimination.
If they were truly private, they could admit anyone they want.

They do look at more, but at the same time, now these schools will have to prove that kids with better GPAs weren't rejected in favor of kids who
bribed their way in. It's an embarrassing mess.

How can you prove that if other factors determine admission...

Again... almost 40,000 kids applied to Harvard for admission into 2020 class. They only gave offers to 5.9%... so 2,360 kids out of 40,000.

I'd venture at least 10,000 of the applicants are well qualified to attend meaning that vast majority would still get rejected. This is why that suit
won't go anywhere because I am sure these schools can easily show that even if they excluded the students who "weren't as qualified" the plaintiff
still would not have been accepted.

Put another way, let's just assume 25% of the admits don't deserve to be there, so 590 slots that would go to another kid. I don't even have to do
the math, but it should be obvious that your chance of acceptance still barely even moves.

Acceptance is largely a crap shoot after a certain point and GPA / Test Scores are not what determines acceptance.

You'd be asking the college to prove all 2,360 are rankable by GPA and test scores alone. The plaintiffs case falls apart when the school shows they
did not accept students who were even more qualified than the plaintiff...

Doubtful.

The circumstance NOW will dictate otherwise considering all that has been uncovered.

Point is, how do we know the tough admissions was being fare to began with? Now that you have uncovered paid seats, everything prior is thrown into
doubt.

Admissions isn't fair... it NEVER has been fair. There is no way to make it "fair" unless you just open admissions to anyone which isn't going to
happen.

Whether we like it or not, these schools are as much social fraternities/sororities just as much as they are academic institutions. Just even think
about it. We have people willing to pay many times more than it cost to attend just to get acceptance. It isn't about the learning, but the social
connections and badges of prestige that certain schools confer.

That's fine and all, but if they get government funding there are rules to be played by, like discrimination.
If they were truly private, they could admit anyone they want.

Unless, of course, they're a religious school and their standards don't suit certain grievance groups, private or not.

At any rate, you're right, that's how it should be with public v. private, and some of those schools make a good case for being private if they aren't
like the Ivies where their endowments are easily large enough to make them financially independent.

It is done, supposedly. For example, the Southern schools are accredited (and periodically evaluated for reaccreditation) by SACS (the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools) and each region has similar. Then there is the NCAA for sports. But the problems come in when paperwork that’s
reviewed has been falsified or doctored.

As I said, given my experience with how the athletics thing is done, I can only imagine they were faking it as walk-ons or as athletes for club level
sports with no higher scrutiny NCAA involved or else you're looking at having to con the NCAA too which is a separate body from the uni entirely. It
can be done ... look at all the cheating scandals, but the conspiracy gets a whole lot bigger with more people involved in keeping things under the
rug and a lot more money would be involved just to get some celeb's kid through the door.

Basically, this would have to be something where they could more or less take a spot and quit with little repercussion because they weren't going to
be in the revenue stream in all likelihood.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.